set_tier_guidance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavioral impact. It only says 'enable' and lists mode options, but does not explain whether the setting is persistent, scoped to a request, reversible, or what happens when enabled is false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence with the core action and mode options front-loaded. There is no wasted text, though the trailing 'local or codex_request' phrase is slightly elliptical.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, more context is needed. The description leaves open what the guidance looks like, when each mode is appropriate, and what toggling the flag actually does, despite the presence of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage and no enums, so the description's 'local or codex_request' hint is valuable for the mode parameter. However, it does not explain the enabled boolean beyond what the schema's default already implies, leaving semantic gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Enable,' with a distinct object, 'compact post-response tier guidance,' and clarifies the two mode options ('local or codex_request'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like model_tiers or set_switch_confirmation, but the resource is specific enough to identify what the tool acts on.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. 'Post-response tier guidance' implies a timing context, but an agent cannot tell why to choose this over set_switch_confirmation or model_tiers.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.